Citizen Portal
Sign In

Greensville planning commission recommends approval of MayMac data center campus with timing conditions

Greensville County Planning Commission · November 13, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Greensville County planning commission voted 6–0 on Nov. 12, 2024 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit SP 42025 for the MayMac Tech Campus, a proposed phased data center campus on roughly 466 acres; the approval includes 12 staff-recommended conditions and a modified Condition 12 governing the start/build timeline.

The Greensville County planning commission voted 6–0 on Nov. 12 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit SP 42025 for the MayMac Tech Campus, a proposed multi‑phase data center campus on about 466 acres near Otterdam Road. The recommendation includes 12 staff conditions and a revised timing condition requiring the applicant to commence land‑disturbing activity within a defined period following permit approval.

County staff and the applicant described the project as a campus of up to 12 data center buildings on parcel record numbers 1653 and 1653A. Kate Jones, presenting the staff report, said the buildings would be capped at 80 feet and that the project would include on‑site power infrastructure such as substations and natural gas backup plants. Jones told the commission the applicant had not supplied a total megawatt figure but estimated 'each data center will demand approximately 200 to 330 watts per square foot,' and said a transmission load study with Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative and Dominion Energy had been initiated to determine actual power availability.

Colleen Gillis, land use counsel for the applicant, emphasized the site lies within the county’s Technology Overlay District and is designated industrial on the comprehensive plan map. She described screening measures along Otterdam Road and a phased build approach tied to power availability. Gillis said the applicant estimates about 1,500 construction jobs over the campus build‑out and 50 to 60 permanent on‑site jobs per building. She also presented the applicant’s fiscal estimate that, at full build‑out, real estate and personal property tax revenue to Greensville County could total between $95 million and $125 million annually.

Ross Litkenhaus of Oasis Digital Properties, who worked on the fiscal model, said the revenue figures rely on assumptions drawn from the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance model and local tax choices. As he explained, equipment in data centers is typically refreshed every three to five years, which can drive up personal property values and increase taxable assessments over time.

Staff conveyed a set of 12 recommended conditions tied to the special use permit. Those conditions cover: ensuring the approved site plan matches construction; final screening, landscaping and preservation of existing vegetation in buffer areas; erosion‑control and stormwater management plans at site plan review; downward‑directed exterior lighting (with exceptions for emergency/safety lighting); a traffic impact analysis approved by the county and VDOT before permanent building infrastructure; securing any required wetland permits; confirmation of cooling strategies at building permit (including water‑use estimates if water cooling is proposed); compliance with Technology Overlay District noise standards; and that several technical studies (such as wetland delineation) be provided as part of subsequent permitting. Staff’s draft Condition 12 originally required the applicant to have six years from approval to establish a data center use; the commission opted to replace that language with the more precise commencement wording read into the record by county staff.

During the meeting a county representative noted the transmission/power study for this application had been completed, while earlier staff remarks had described the study as 'underway.' Commissioners questioned the six‑year timeframe for build‑out and the applicant reiterated that phasing would depend on when utilities could 'serve' the site. The applicant reiterated willingness to accept the adjusted Condition 12 language.

A motion to recommend approval — including the 12 staff conditions and the revised Condition 12 language — was made from the floor and seconded. The clerk conducted a roll call; the motion passed with six affirmative votes. The planning commission’s recommendation now proceeds to the next step in the county’s permitting process.

No members of the public spoke during the hearing.

Next procedural steps include finalizing the special use permit language and any technical attachments required for site plan and permitting (stormwater, traffic impact analysis, wetland permits, and the power/transmission confirmations from the utilities).